I have to say I am watching Apple Computer execute and am impressed. What they are doing with their product design and creating new markets and new business models is simply brilliant. I have conclude that what Apple is good at doing is finding something at the tipping point and pushing it over the edge into mass acceptance. This involves them having to anticipate technology impacts, as well as sometimes simply repackaging something that already exists in another form and then monetizing it.
Take podcasting as an example. Podcasting could have been done practically for a number of years using the internet as a delivery backbone. Quite simply, it is audio recordings distributed over the internet. Can you imagine someone 2 years ago seeing a Silicon Valley VC and saying that he has this fantastic new business idea - allow people to distribute their own recordings on the internet! I can only imagine the reaction. Now, along comes Apple and creates an ecosystem that does the very same thing - take a a solid hardware device ( the ipod - the new "Walkman" ), add some software (iTunes) to distribute the files and a very simple idea leads to a new information distribution platform that could threaten some traditional media outlets over time. But at its core, this is not different from a technology perspective than what audible.com or Napster could have done years back. Distributing audio files is basic stuff indeed. Aha - but Apple saw that this "almost there" solution needed a push and a user-friendly platform. Name it "podcasting" and away you go with a new phenomenon. Apple literally surfed the wave that was already building off the technology shoreline.
Am I criticising Apple for repackaging old concepts or for not being original ? Quite the contrary. Apple and its team seem to have an uncanny sense of when something is ready for prime time and they know how to evole it, and then execute it to be warmly recieved by the end-users.
That, my friends, is one heck of talent. And I would bet it has far less to do with focus groups and market studies, and far more to do with wisdom and good instincts at the top. A "job" well done indeed.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Intelligent design and evolution
So the debate has begun in the US over the teaching of evolution versus the teaching of alternates like intelligent design ("ID") theory. The slippery slope theorists are worried that if ID is presented as at least a viable hypothesis, then perhaps there are others as well. Where would this leave our schools and teachers ?
My perspective is that "slippery slope" concerns aside, evolution is a theory that is taught as fact and if nothing else it will be helpful in the pursuit of truth to clarify that this theory is lacking and an alternate exists. I can recall my grade 9 science class where my teacher talked about how the basic building blocks of life were created in a test tube. The impression left was that we know where we came from and how we got here. To me, in restrospect and now better educated on the facts, evolution is a theory with many weaknesses.
Science, as it peels back the layers of our physical world, continues to uncover astonishing things about how the universe is governed. Regardless of one's position on how these came to be, science can never answer the question "why" in the ultimate. Religion and science are not in opposition to each other - but each speaks to different parts of the truth. Science can examine the physical world and propose how it works and why is works, but it can never answer the question about "why" or the question about the ultimate source of matter and order in the universe.
This debate will stir up emotions, but it should shed some needed light on this issue.
My perspective is that "slippery slope" concerns aside, evolution is a theory that is taught as fact and if nothing else it will be helpful in the pursuit of truth to clarify that this theory is lacking and an alternate exists. I can recall my grade 9 science class where my teacher talked about how the basic building blocks of life were created in a test tube. The impression left was that we know where we came from and how we got here. To me, in restrospect and now better educated on the facts, evolution is a theory with many weaknesses.
Science, as it peels back the layers of our physical world, continues to uncover astonishing things about how the universe is governed. Regardless of one's position on how these came to be, science can never answer the question "why" in the ultimate. Religion and science are not in opposition to each other - but each speaks to different parts of the truth. Science can examine the physical world and propose how it works and why is works, but it can never answer the question about "why" or the question about the ultimate source of matter and order in the universe.
This debate will stir up emotions, but it should shed some needed light on this issue.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Thanksgiving
Today marks the celebration of Thanksgiving in Canada. It is always good to pause, and focus, on the things that we appreciate - not the things we feel we need. Our consumerist society plucks the hearstrings of desire every way we look-whether on TV, the internet, or magazines. We are told, again and again that we need the new car, the new house, the new clothes, the new self. I am glad for one day where we can formally say "hey-we have more than enough".
There is an author who has proposed that we need to practice "learned thankfulness". And in a culture of dis-thankfulness, I agree. Funny, the happiest people most of us know have learned to be happy in the simple ways, and to be thankful for the small things.
May that be me today.
I am truly blessed, and my heart overflows with thankfulness for my wife, Spencer, Ryan, my parents and family and friends.
There is an author who has proposed that we need to practice "learned thankfulness". And in a culture of dis-thankfulness, I agree. Funny, the happiest people most of us know have learned to be happy in the simple ways, and to be thankful for the small things.
May that be me today.
I am truly blessed, and my heart overflows with thankfulness for my wife, Spencer, Ryan, my parents and family and friends.
Monday, September 05, 2005
A day in the life of Newport,RI
This picture captures the spirit of our recent holiday in Newport. We fell in love with the sea, the sounds, the sights of this charming little city just an hour or so south of Boston. We hope to be back again in 2006. Until then - this picture reminds me of just one of the many sights of this great place.Saturday, August 20, 2005
Soccer season ended
The season has come to an end. My first year as a coach, and I enjoyed it tremendously. I will miss these great kids and their enthusiasm and different personalities. I appreciated the chance to play some very small role in their young lives, perhaps just a passing marker on their journey in life that left a faint memory of joy and hope and encouragement.It is humbling to see children and their enthusiasm, simplicity and yet the small strands of early insecurity and doubt and competitiveness that haunt us all. The strong players learn that they are strong and get the respect they hope for. The weaker players are seen as such and the pattern continues throughout their lifetime.
Fundamentally, every human being is a spark of life, a breath of God in this fallen rocky planet. To have interacted with and experienced them for a brief time has been a joy.
Here is a picture of the gang....may I carry their memories with me for life. Go get 'em boys - may you find what you need in this world and find the Truth that sets you free.
I am thankful for them all, and in a special way for Harman, the son of a gracious man who is in a wheelchair for reasons I do not know. When Harman scored his first goal during the last game of the regular season, I felt such joy for his father and it was somehow poetic for him to watch his young, fast, strong, and hopeful son run down the field and score. The son that he cannot kick the ball with, but must in his dreams. As a father I cry when I think about this.
And finally, it was fitting that Spencer scored his first and last goal of the season on this last tournament game (we won 4-0). I was so proud of him and burst with joy. Go Spencer go ! Whatever you do in life, I am here to cheer you on.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Randon thoughts on holidays and SAAB's
We are off to Newport, Rhode Island and Maine next week. I am looking forward to a week off with Sandra, Spencer and Ryan. We had a fabulous time a few weeks back on a short jaunt to Newport and are looking forward to a longer visit this time. The picture here is one from our last trip.
Cars- a necessary evil
We continue to weigh the decision to get a new car versus hanging onto our two old ones (1994 SAAB 900S turbo and 1997 SAAB 9000CSE). Recently we have test driven a few cars (Acura, Infiniti, BMW, etc). and are concluding that few (perhaps BMW) have the feel of the old SAAB’s. In fact, I test drove a 2002 SAAB 9-5 two days ago and was thoroughly disappointed with the car. The road feel and solidness was inadequate. Many drivers of old SAAB’s are saying that you need to move to Audi or BMW to get a similar feel as some of the older generation SAABs. Based on my test drives of the new series 3 and 5 from BMW I have to say I concur.
On the topic of new versus used cars, there comes a point where the cost to keep the older vehicles running forces one to give in and get something newer. I will say that we will probably have spent $6,000 in the last 12 months on the 2 cars – but then again, this is for the basics like mufflers, brakes and tires that will be good for 2-4 years. Doing the math I am still better off than paying $800-1,000 per month for two car payments.
I am concluding that we need to wait a few more months – probably until Spring 2006 and revisit the issue based on a range of factors.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The season is almost done
Well, my first season as soccer coach is virtually done. The last regular game just finished about an hour ago and we have one more game Saturday.
Coaching has taught me a few things. Firstly, that I am more competitive than I thought. Although this is a league where scores and standings are not tracked, the competitive spirit lies just beneath a thinly veiled guise of "we are all here to have fun".
The good news is that the children do not sense this, or at least not too much. I did notice though that even children want to know a) the score and b) have we won more game than we have lost. It is clear that all of us like to nbe on a winning team.
Spencer has developed well this year. He is a well rounded player able to play many positions, but I think defence is his best (or goal).
It is a nice clear August night. There will be very few nice summer evenings liek this left to enjoy. Sandra and I are sat on the porch...over and out.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Evolution and the Tsunami
The last few weeks since the December 26 Tsunami disaster have shown the heights to which people can go in showing their practical altruism. The world is reaching into Asia to to help these poor souls whose lives have been destroyed. Despite the realities of organizational and logistics challenges, we all want to help those whose lives have been literally unearthed.
I am glad to see this - and not at all surprised - believing as I do that mankind is more than the sum of our parts - but a creature created with a higher and more noble self and calling to servce God and others.
But at times like this I have to wonder what philosophical evolutionists such as the Richard Dawkins of the world conclude when they see humanity reaching out to help others. I ask this because this world view in its most basic form believes that we are animals who happen to, through a series of fortunate accidents, sit at the top of the food chain after a long and painful process of evolution. When disaster strikes one might therefore expect that such "animals" would do little but clean up the mess and wash our hands of it and hope to move on quickly. I say this because our species, under this world view should in a sense be glad to have a few hundred thousand mouths to feed in a populous and poor area. The ones left behind are better off, would go the tune, if you really believed evolution.
How can those from this school of thought explain why we act so altruistically if we are in fact just animals sans a soul?
I am sure they will find some way to explain this and wriggle and writhe through the philosophical nuances of how it makes us feel better about ourselves and creates more serotonin in our brain and so is actually a selfish act. I prefer to look to the more obvious explanation. We are more than physicality and molecules and flesh and bones. We have a soul and spirit an essence that is not from this physically bounded world.
And this soul of man calls us to a higher good and a more noble cause than simply existing for ourselves. We see it every day in small ways - and currently in a big way in Asia - and aren't we all glad that this is so ?
I am glad to see this - and not at all surprised - believing as I do that mankind is more than the sum of our parts - but a creature created with a higher and more noble self and calling to servce God and others.
But at times like this I have to wonder what philosophical evolutionists such as the Richard Dawkins of the world conclude when they see humanity reaching out to help others. I ask this because this world view in its most basic form believes that we are animals who happen to, through a series of fortunate accidents, sit at the top of the food chain after a long and painful process of evolution. When disaster strikes one might therefore expect that such "animals" would do little but clean up the mess and wash our hands of it and hope to move on quickly. I say this because our species, under this world view should in a sense be glad to have a few hundred thousand mouths to feed in a populous and poor area. The ones left behind are better off, would go the tune, if you really believed evolution.
How can those from this school of thought explain why we act so altruistically if we are in fact just animals sans a soul?
I am sure they will find some way to explain this and wriggle and writhe through the philosophical nuances of how it makes us feel better about ourselves and creates more serotonin in our brain and so is actually a selfish act. I prefer to look to the more obvious explanation. We are more than physicality and molecules and flesh and bones. We have a soul and spirit an essence that is not from this physically bounded world.
And this soul of man calls us to a higher good and a more noble cause than simply existing for ourselves. We see it every day in small ways - and currently in a big way in Asia - and aren't we all glad that this is so ?
Friday, December 31, 2004
Sitting in Florida: almost 2005
Just sitting here at 8.24pm December 31, 2004 in the Hampton Inn in St Augustine Beach, Florida (using my wireless laptop). I am now overlooking the pool and ocean from inside while sitting in the restaurant area.
Sandra, I and The Boys headed down by car from Toronto leaving Wednesday morning Dec 29th at around 9.30am. We arrived in Florida this morning to decent weather for this time of year. The drive down was fine. We have a pretty good system to manage the time in the car. We tend to drive fro 4-5 hours in the a.m. and then take a break after lunch and start driving again around 4pm to get in another 4-5 hours max. At the end of each day we have covered about 600 miles - and The Boys seems to not mind the time in the car that way.
We are heading to Tampa tomorrow to spend a couple of days and then back up towards Savannah for some walking and exploring. We are not planning to start driving back to Toronto untiol Thursday morning or so - and hope to be back in town by Saturday afternoon.
Happy New Year to all - and to all a wonderful 2005. May we keep those suffering in Asia in our prayers tonight.
Sandra, I and The Boys headed down by car from Toronto leaving Wednesday morning Dec 29th at around 9.30am. We arrived in Florida this morning to decent weather for this time of year. The drive down was fine. We have a pretty good system to manage the time in the car. We tend to drive fro 4-5 hours in the a.m. and then take a break after lunch and start driving again around 4pm to get in another 4-5 hours max. At the end of each day we have covered about 600 miles - and The Boys seems to not mind the time in the car that way.
We are heading to Tampa tomorrow to spend a couple of days and then back up towards Savannah for some walking and exploring. We are not planning to start driving back to Toronto untiol Thursday morning or so - and hope to be back in town by Saturday afternoon.
Happy New Year to all - and to all a wonderful 2005. May we keep those suffering in Asia in our prayers tonight.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Christmas comes and goes again...the world sleeps on.
It seems if you blink, you miss it. So I tried not to blink....but I still missed it.
Missed what ? The simplicity and truth of Christmas. Christ comes to earth. Is born in the middle of nowhere. Is missed by most of the population of the world at that time. News of his birth is not tranmitted by CNN or BBC or using RSS feeds or on a web site or findable by google search.
Why didn't God send Christ into history today when we have the technology to spread the word faster, better, cheaper? Dear Lord, what were you thinking? Wouldn't your message be better aided by this technology that allows us to transmit data around the world in seconds? Why send your Son into a stable in the middle of nowehere with no cell phone, no internet, no platform to spread His Word?
Perhaps God knew something we don't. In fact, I am sure He does. Jesus was not a dot com. Not a flash in the pan. Not the latest fad, the coolest dude, the one we all want to see in People magazine. He was, and is, simply and not so simply the Redeemer. The King. God the Son. He was sent to us as one of us, dropped into an age of simplicity where people, flesh, words, and deeds mattered more than the intermediating technologies through which we today interact with each other.
Is it possible that his message needed that context to take hold....perhaps our age of technology is now an age of irony and inconsequence and transitory technologies that distract and amuse us? Much ado about nothing, yet consuming so much of our time.
Or perhaps God's decision as to when to send Christ has absolutely nothing to do with the technology and capability of the epoch into which he was born, but everything to do with something we know nothing about yet. My head aches just thinking about it. But my heart sings.
Missed what ? The simplicity and truth of Christmas. Christ comes to earth. Is born in the middle of nowhere. Is missed by most of the population of the world at that time. News of his birth is not tranmitted by CNN or BBC or using RSS feeds or on a web site or findable by google search.
Why didn't God send Christ into history today when we have the technology to spread the word faster, better, cheaper? Dear Lord, what were you thinking? Wouldn't your message be better aided by this technology that allows us to transmit data around the world in seconds? Why send your Son into a stable in the middle of nowehere with no cell phone, no internet, no platform to spread His Word?
Perhaps God knew something we don't. In fact, I am sure He does. Jesus was not a dot com. Not a flash in the pan. Not the latest fad, the coolest dude, the one we all want to see in People magazine. He was, and is, simply and not so simply the Redeemer. The King. God the Son. He was sent to us as one of us, dropped into an age of simplicity where people, flesh, words, and deeds mattered more than the intermediating technologies through which we today interact with each other.
Is it possible that his message needed that context to take hold....perhaps our age of technology is now an age of irony and inconsequence and transitory technologies that distract and amuse us? Much ado about nothing, yet consuming so much of our time.
Or perhaps God's decision as to when to send Christ has absolutely nothing to do with the technology and capability of the epoch into which he was born, but everything to do with something we know nothing about yet. My head aches just thinking about it. But my heart sings.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Canada and day care
It appears our Liberal government is moving forward with a $5B initiative to expand government funded daycare services. The inexorable march of greater government intrusion into family life is advanced by such action - to the detriment of society as a whole.
Why does this matter to society? It matters on so many fronts - and for both moral and economic efficiency reasons. Human beings find child rearing equally hard and rewarding. Personal time shrinks to nil when children are young while we focus on the basics of feeding, caring and loving them. This effort is the cost we humans pay to participate in the great cycle of life. This "cost" is beneficial to individuals and society in so many ways. It ensures that people make wise choices about choosing to be parents; it ensures that we remember that our life is more than acquiring things and positions in companies and organizations; it builds a deep and fundamental bond between the individuals involved that last for a lifetime and strengthems the fabric of civil society; it reinforces that bringing life into this world is a great and wonderful thing that costs us dearly, but which is richy rewarding. Otherwise, having a child is in essence a choice to have sexual relations, carry the child to term and pass them off to a group of strangers for most of their time except when it is convenient for us.
And so, my concern with daycare of any kind is that it allows us to outsource the cost of having children to someone else and avoiding the moral universe's natural calculus which says - "If you choose to have children, you choose to raise, love, nurture and care for them". By doing so, I believe we diminish the importance of the job that the universe has assigned us, as well as never being able to look our children in the eye and say, "We chose to love you when it cost us dearly - and so you know that our love is true and unconditional. We were willing to sacrifice for you." The children of the nanny and daycare generation can never really believe their parents when they claim this. On one level these children can wonder if the choice to have children wsa not much different than a choice to buy a second car or a cottage.
Daycare parents will recoil at what I am suggesting. But I they cannot argue that their actions move us along a continuum that makes having a child seem more like a consumer choice, than a costly and rewarding personal committment.
Daycare may be a necessary evil in some cases (not as many cases as we think...), but it should continue to be an exception to the basic rule that tells us that our children are our children and when they are too young to care for themelves - their mom and dad are there for them.
Because if they are not there for them at their most vulnerable and when they are most in need and least able to repay, a fundamental moral law is violated.
Why does this matter to society? It matters on so many fronts - and for both moral and economic efficiency reasons. Human beings find child rearing equally hard and rewarding. Personal time shrinks to nil when children are young while we focus on the basics of feeding, caring and loving them. This effort is the cost we humans pay to participate in the great cycle of life. This "cost" is beneficial to individuals and society in so many ways. It ensures that people make wise choices about choosing to be parents; it ensures that we remember that our life is more than acquiring things and positions in companies and organizations; it builds a deep and fundamental bond between the individuals involved that last for a lifetime and strengthems the fabric of civil society; it reinforces that bringing life into this world is a great and wonderful thing that costs us dearly, but which is richy rewarding. Otherwise, having a child is in essence a choice to have sexual relations, carry the child to term and pass them off to a group of strangers for most of their time except when it is convenient for us.
And so, my concern with daycare of any kind is that it allows us to outsource the cost of having children to someone else and avoiding the moral universe's natural calculus which says - "If you choose to have children, you choose to raise, love, nurture and care for them". By doing so, I believe we diminish the importance of the job that the universe has assigned us, as well as never being able to look our children in the eye and say, "We chose to love you when it cost us dearly - and so you know that our love is true and unconditional. We were willing to sacrifice for you." The children of the nanny and daycare generation can never really believe their parents when they claim this. On one level these children can wonder if the choice to have children wsa not much different than a choice to buy a second car or a cottage.
Daycare parents will recoil at what I am suggesting. But I they cannot argue that their actions move us along a continuum that makes having a child seem more like a consumer choice, than a costly and rewarding personal committment.
Daycare may be a necessary evil in some cases (not as many cases as we think...), but it should continue to be an exception to the basic rule that tells us that our children are our children and when they are too young to care for themelves - their mom and dad are there for them.
Because if they are not there for them at their most vulnerable and when they are most in need and least able to repay, a fundamental moral law is violated.
Monday, November 15, 2004
The bottom line on what your life is all a about
"Love of self until God is forgotten or love of God until self is forgotten."
St Augustine
Heaven or hell must just be the natural outcome resulting from which of those two paths we choose....
St Augustine
Heaven or hell must just be the natural outcome resulting from which of those two paths we choose....
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Frederick Beuchner - one of my favourite authors
A reprint of the "The Door Interview"
Buech-ner, Fred-er-ick (Beek'ner),n. 1. A twentieth-century writer/minister. 2. Location: Vermont- as in rambling New England farm complete with rambling New England house.
Background (bak'ground), n. 1. One's training and experience. 2.Union Seminary. 3. Teacher at Exeter (Eastern Prep School). 4. Writer- more than two dozen books; a 1980 Pulitzer Prize nominee for his novel Godric. 5. Married. Three children. All girls.
Books (books), n. 1. Printed works on sheets of paper bound together, sometimes between hard covers. 2. Whistling in the Dark. 3. A Room Called Remember. 4. Peculiar Treasures. 5. The Book of Bebb.
Pho-bi-a (fo'bee-ah),n. 1. An irrational, excessive, and persistent fear of something. Example: Frederick Buechner refuses to fly anywhere.
Pig (pig), n. 1. A domesticated animal with broad snout and fat body; swine, hog. 2. Enormous black-and-white pet of Buechner family. 3. Name: Piggy.
Gift (gift), n. 1. A natural ability; i.e., makes gospel new and alive while using the unfamiliar, the unexpected. 2. Ability to give new insight by not speaking in cliches.
Worthwhile (wurth whil), adj. 1. Worth the time effort spent; of true value, as in the statement, "This interview is worthwhile."
DOOR: It is kind of refreshing to meet someone who speaks about the Christian faith in a new way, at least a new way to us. What is your connection with the church?
BUECHNER: To be honest, I grew up without any real church connection. When I was young, I was nominally an Episcopalian. I was confirmed, but had no strong connection.
DOOR: But you are a Presbyterian. How did that come about?
BUECHNER: It was really almost a matter of tossing a coin. When it came time to be ordained (I had to be ordained in some particular church), I chose Presbyterian, basically because of George Buttrick. It was in his church that the whole thing came alive.
DOOR: What happened?
BUECHNER: Years ago I had decided to move to New York and become a writer. While I was there, I drifted into George Buttrick's church on a Sunday morning- for no good reason, really, except it was there and I had nothing else to do. Buttrick preached the sermon, and he was talking about coronations. (He was a marvelous preacher because he had no finesse. He plucked at his robes and mumbled his words, which made him all the more powerful.) This was at the time of the present Queen's coronation, and he was talking about Jesus at the time of his temptation. He said that Jesus was offered a crown, like Queen Elizabeth's, if he would kneel down and worship Satan, but he turned it down. Then Buttrick said, "But now Jesus is crowned in the heart of the believer," and he used this phrase, "among tears and confession and great laughter." For reasons I've never been able to explain, that phrase "great laughter" absolutely decimated me. I found tears spouting in my eyes. If one were looking for the "born-again" experience, in some funny way, this was it. I couldn't have told you then, nor can I tell you now, why the phrase "great laughter" did it. Maybe it was the laughter of incredulity that perhaps it was true, or the laughter of relief that all the things that might have been true, instead weren't.
DOOR: Is it the thought that the gospel is really true that overwhelms you?
BUECHNER: It's sort of a continuing dim spectacle of the subterranean presence of grace in the world that haunts me. If you look deeply enough into yourself or into the New York Times, there are many mysteries. And the mystery of the mysteries at the bottom of the well, at the far reach of the road, is the mystery of God, of Christ. This is what I explore as a novelist- the incredibleness of it, the spectrum of it. It seems as if maybe it isn't true... but, yes, maybe it is true! And the moments when it seems to be true are just staggering moments.
DOOR: You are an ordained Presbyterian minister?
BUECHNER: Yes, but I'm afraid I'm a bad Presbyterian. Just the other day I was invited to give a talk on "Why I Am a Presbyterian." I told them I couldn't possibly, because I don't know why I'm a Presbyterian.
DOOR: That probably doesn't make the Presbyterian fathers very happy, does it?
BUECHNER In fact, I keep getting letters from the Presbyterian church asking how I justify my ordination. It is a question that absolutely makes my scalp go cold. How can anybody "justify" his ministry? Is the ministry or the priesthood something you can put on and take off? What they are saying to me is, "You've taken off your coat of ministry, so let us take you off the rolls." Something in me just rises up in horror. I was ordained an evangelist. If an evangelist preaches the Christian faith as best he can, then that's what I've spent my life doing.
DOOR: Being an evangelist, you must have heard of the four spiritual laws?
BUECHNER: I can't say that I have.
DOOR: And you call yourself an evangelist? Bill Bright would not be happy.
BUECHNER: Who is Bill Bright?
DOOR: Seriously? You have never heard of the founder and president of Campus Crusade, an evangelical organization committed to reaching the world by 1984? An organization in the process of raising one billion dollars to reach the world for Christ?
BUECHNER: He hasn't reached me.
DOOR: Your religious books don't seem very religious, which is a compliment, by the way.
BUECHNER: Well, I've never learned to talk about the Christian faith in the accustomed way. I've talked about it the only way I can. In some ways it has created a dilemma for me as a writer, because my religious books are too colloquial and too secular for church people, yet too churchy for secular people.
DOOR: So are you primarily a writer who happens to be a minister, or a minister who happens to be a writer?
BUECHNER: People sometimes say to me, "Why did you get out of the ministry?" I find that deeply upsetting, because I don't, in any sense, think of myself as giving up the ministry. But I do think of writing as a ministry.
DOOR: The Bible is very important in the evangelical church. There is a lot of discussion about the inerrancy issue. In your books, you seem to approach the Bible in a unique way. How do you read the Bible?
BUECHNER: How many ways are there to read the Bible? You can read it devotionally, and I suppose I do that somewhat, St. Paul especially. But I don't want to give the impression that I'm a great Bible reader. I don't sit down every day and read for an hour through the Bible. But I really do read it with a great deal of pleasure... which is the last thing I would have suspected. It's fun to read. So I read it sometimes as a devotional, but really more, not for fun, but because it's fascinating.
DOOR: Is the Bible truth?
BUECHNER: There is a wonderful piece by Karl Barth in a book called The Word of God, The Word of Man. He says that reading the Bible is like looking down from a building onto the street and seeing everyone looking up, pointing at something. Because of the way the window is situated, you can't see what they're seeing but you realize they are seeing something of extraordinary importance. That is what it is like to read the Bible. It's full of people, all pointing up at some extraordinary event. All those different fingers are pointing at truth; all those different voices are babbling about truth in all the Bible's different forms.
DOOR: But what is the truth the fingers are pointing at?
BUECHNER: Well, the truth has to do basically with the presence of God in history, the presence of God in the tangled history of Israel, of all places, and the tangled histories of us all. The truth is very hard to verbalize without making it sound like a platitude framed on a minister's wall. It is a living truth in the sense that it is better experienced than explained. Not even the Bible can contain it finally, but only point to it.
DOOR: You mentioned in your book Wishful Thinking that reading the Bible as literature is like reading Moby Dick as a whaling manual. As evangelicals, our problem seems to be the opposite- an extreme literalism that reads the Bible as a whaling manual rather than literature.
BUECHNER: You can't listen to some of the more blood-curdling psalms without feeling they've got something basically wrong. The one I always think of is Psalm 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Something has gone wrong. That must be an imperfect expression of the majesty of God. But I would want to be very careful with the one who does take the Bible literally. We had a baby-sitter once who was very fundamentalistic. She became a Jehovah's Witness later on. She would say to me, "Mr. Buechner, I will not allow my children to take the Salk vaccine because the Bible says you are not to eat blood, and everyone knows there is blood in the Salk vaccine. What do you think?" Part of me wanted to say that such a response was a travesty, and suggest that, of course, her children should have the Salk vaccine. But I always drew back from saying that, because I was afraid that if I destroyed that way of reading the Bible, I might destroy all sorts of other things. But I have always had the feeling that to take things literally may be closer to the truth than some of the more sophisticated ways of looking at the Bible. If you want to talk of being literally washed in the blood of the lamb, there is something in me that recoils from that. Yet, in another sense, I'd rather have that kind of language used as an expression of experience of Christ than whatever it might be watered down to.
DOOR: What does the Bible tell you about Jesus Christ?
BUECHNER: He's central. I mean, he's there even when he's not being talked about. I never felt that so much as I did while reading the book of Job, the other day- Christ in Job, the innocent sufferer. Christ is an enormously moving figure. I never cease to be moved to the roots of my being. (I'm even moved now thinking about him.) It is only his friends who make him boring. You'd think he'd grow stale after a while. Certainly, the Bible can grow stale, but I've never found him to grow stale. I've never been bored by him.
DOOR: Is the Bible primarily a book of rules, principles, and norms set down for us to follow?
BUECHNER: I don't feel that. At least that's not what I hear. To me, the most precious words of his are, "Come unto me, all who labor and are heavy laden." I can hardly speak those words without getting a lump in my throat. It is as though the Jesus that comes through to me is less a lawgiver, for all his giving of laws, than a speaker of a stern and loving word. What I hear is his great openness. What I experience is the opening up of a whole new range of possibilities. Jesus has the invitation. He's the inviter, the opener of doors. Falling back on biblical images, he opens the door, and a light floods through that you never dreamed possible.
DOOR: Your book Telling the Truth is subtitled The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale. Of course, the most intriguing part of that is your concept of the gospel as fairy tale. What do you mean?
BUECHNER: I mean the idea of preaching the gospel in all its preposterousness and not trying to water it down. The gospel does have many of the earmarks of a fairy tale. In fairy tales you have the poor boy who becomes rich, the leaden cabinet which turns out to have the treasure in it, the ugly duckling who turns out to be a swan, the frog who becomes a prince. Then we come to the gospel, where it's the Pharisees, the good ones, who turn out to be the villians. It's the whores and tax collectors who turn out to be the good ones. Just as in fairy tales, there is the impossible happy ending when Cinderella does marry the prince, and the ugly duckling is transformed into a swan, so Jesus is not, in the end, defeated. He rises again. In all these ways there is a kind of fairy tale quality to the gospel, with the extraordinary difference, of course, that this is the fairy tale that claims to be true. The difference is that this time it's not just a story being told- it's an event. It did happen! Here's a fairy tale come true.
DOOR: It seems that many of us have tried to squeeze the fairy-tale quality out of the gospel. We have taken the peace that passes understanding and made it the peace everyone can understand.
BUECHNER: One of the greatest temptations, of course, in trying to sell something is to put it in terms that people will find palatable and swallowable. To reduce it to something that others will find in their powers to believe. But maybe the best apologetics is to present the truth as it really is. Why not present the gospel in all its madness? Why not say things like, "Yes, you will be given your life back again. Yes, it doesn't end with death. Yes, the kingdom will come. Yes, Christ will come down from heaven." Maybe people are hungry for these wild and mad things which some preachers attempt to pull down to earth.
DOOR: How do we keep our eyes open to the fairy-tale quality of the gospel?
BUECHNER: There has always been a certain mystery to me about Jesus' saying that we must become like children. I think that is the answer to your question. A lot of what I'm trying to do as a preacher and writer is to reawaken the child in people. The child is the one who trusts. The child will at least go and look for the magic place. The child is the one who is not ashamed of not knowing the answers, because he's not expected to know the answers. Maybe this is part of calling the gospel a fairy tale. Who believes more in fairy tales than a child? Therefore, maybe we need to speak to the child in people, who can indeed believe.
DOOR: You are invited to speak to ministers a great deal. What do you tell them?
BUECHNER: I tell them that a minister has only two stories to tell. One is the story of Jesus. The other is his own story. Most ministers don't dare tell their own stories- the ups and downs, the darks and lights. In a sense, the two stories are the same story. The parallels are not exact... Jesus is tempted and resists; we are tempted and don't resist. Of course, all ministers draw some stories from their lives- what somebody said or something that happened, but I mean more than that. If you want to talk about grace, if you want to talk about revelation, talk about your life with some depth (which doesn't mean lurid revelations as much as simply looking at your own deep experiences and describing them as they are.) Many ministers agree that this is the way they should bear witness to their faith, but instead of drawing on their lives for truth, they draw on it only for anecdote.
Buech-ner, Fred-er-ick (Beek'ner),n. 1. A twentieth-century writer/minister. 2. Location: Vermont- as in rambling New England farm complete with rambling New England house.
Background (bak'ground), n. 1. One's training and experience. 2.Union Seminary. 3. Teacher at Exeter (Eastern Prep School). 4. Writer- more than two dozen books; a 1980 Pulitzer Prize nominee for his novel Godric. 5. Married. Three children. All girls.
Books (books), n. 1. Printed works on sheets of paper bound together, sometimes between hard covers. 2. Whistling in the Dark. 3. A Room Called Remember. 4. Peculiar Treasures. 5. The Book of Bebb.
Pho-bi-a (fo'bee-ah),n. 1. An irrational, excessive, and persistent fear of something. Example: Frederick Buechner refuses to fly anywhere.
Pig (pig), n. 1. A domesticated animal with broad snout and fat body; swine, hog. 2. Enormous black-and-white pet of Buechner family. 3. Name: Piggy.
Gift (gift), n. 1. A natural ability; i.e., makes gospel new and alive while using the unfamiliar, the unexpected. 2. Ability to give new insight by not speaking in cliches.
Worthwhile (wurth whil), adj. 1. Worth the time effort spent; of true value, as in the statement, "This interview is worthwhile."
DOOR: It is kind of refreshing to meet someone who speaks about the Christian faith in a new way, at least a new way to us. What is your connection with the church?
BUECHNER: To be honest, I grew up without any real church connection. When I was young, I was nominally an Episcopalian. I was confirmed, but had no strong connection.
DOOR: But you are a Presbyterian. How did that come about?
BUECHNER: It was really almost a matter of tossing a coin. When it came time to be ordained (I had to be ordained in some particular church), I chose Presbyterian, basically because of George Buttrick. It was in his church that the whole thing came alive.
DOOR: What happened?
BUECHNER: Years ago I had decided to move to New York and become a writer. While I was there, I drifted into George Buttrick's church on a Sunday morning- for no good reason, really, except it was there and I had nothing else to do. Buttrick preached the sermon, and he was talking about coronations. (He was a marvelous preacher because he had no finesse. He plucked at his robes and mumbled his words, which made him all the more powerful.) This was at the time of the present Queen's coronation, and he was talking about Jesus at the time of his temptation. He said that Jesus was offered a crown, like Queen Elizabeth's, if he would kneel down and worship Satan, but he turned it down. Then Buttrick said, "But now Jesus is crowned in the heart of the believer," and he used this phrase, "among tears and confession and great laughter." For reasons I've never been able to explain, that phrase "great laughter" absolutely decimated me. I found tears spouting in my eyes. If one were looking for the "born-again" experience, in some funny way, this was it. I couldn't have told you then, nor can I tell you now, why the phrase "great laughter" did it. Maybe it was the laughter of incredulity that perhaps it was true, or the laughter of relief that all the things that might have been true, instead weren't.
DOOR: Is it the thought that the gospel is really true that overwhelms you?
BUECHNER: It's sort of a continuing dim spectacle of the subterranean presence of grace in the world that haunts me. If you look deeply enough into yourself or into the New York Times, there are many mysteries. And the mystery of the mysteries at the bottom of the well, at the far reach of the road, is the mystery of God, of Christ. This is what I explore as a novelist- the incredibleness of it, the spectrum of it. It seems as if maybe it isn't true... but, yes, maybe it is true! And the moments when it seems to be true are just staggering moments.
DOOR: You are an ordained Presbyterian minister?
BUECHNER: Yes, but I'm afraid I'm a bad Presbyterian. Just the other day I was invited to give a talk on "Why I Am a Presbyterian." I told them I couldn't possibly, because I don't know why I'm a Presbyterian.
DOOR: That probably doesn't make the Presbyterian fathers very happy, does it?
BUECHNER In fact, I keep getting letters from the Presbyterian church asking how I justify my ordination. It is a question that absolutely makes my scalp go cold. How can anybody "justify" his ministry? Is the ministry or the priesthood something you can put on and take off? What they are saying to me is, "You've taken off your coat of ministry, so let us take you off the rolls." Something in me just rises up in horror. I was ordained an evangelist. If an evangelist preaches the Christian faith as best he can, then that's what I've spent my life doing.
DOOR: Being an evangelist, you must have heard of the four spiritual laws?
BUECHNER: I can't say that I have.
DOOR: And you call yourself an evangelist? Bill Bright would not be happy.
BUECHNER: Who is Bill Bright?
DOOR: Seriously? You have never heard of the founder and president of Campus Crusade, an evangelical organization committed to reaching the world by 1984? An organization in the process of raising one billion dollars to reach the world for Christ?
BUECHNER: He hasn't reached me.
DOOR: Your religious books don't seem very religious, which is a compliment, by the way.
BUECHNER: Well, I've never learned to talk about the Christian faith in the accustomed way. I've talked about it the only way I can. In some ways it has created a dilemma for me as a writer, because my religious books are too colloquial and too secular for church people, yet too churchy for secular people.
DOOR: So are you primarily a writer who happens to be a minister, or a minister who happens to be a writer?
BUECHNER: People sometimes say to me, "Why did you get out of the ministry?" I find that deeply upsetting, because I don't, in any sense, think of myself as giving up the ministry. But I do think of writing as a ministry.
DOOR: The Bible is very important in the evangelical church. There is a lot of discussion about the inerrancy issue. In your books, you seem to approach the Bible in a unique way. How do you read the Bible?
BUECHNER: How many ways are there to read the Bible? You can read it devotionally, and I suppose I do that somewhat, St. Paul especially. But I don't want to give the impression that I'm a great Bible reader. I don't sit down every day and read for an hour through the Bible. But I really do read it with a great deal of pleasure... which is the last thing I would have suspected. It's fun to read. So I read it sometimes as a devotional, but really more, not for fun, but because it's fascinating.
DOOR: Is the Bible truth?
BUECHNER: There is a wonderful piece by Karl Barth in a book called The Word of God, The Word of Man. He says that reading the Bible is like looking down from a building onto the street and seeing everyone looking up, pointing at something. Because of the way the window is situated, you can't see what they're seeing but you realize they are seeing something of extraordinary importance. That is what it is like to read the Bible. It's full of people, all pointing up at some extraordinary event. All those different fingers are pointing at truth; all those different voices are babbling about truth in all the Bible's different forms.
DOOR: But what is the truth the fingers are pointing at?
BUECHNER: Well, the truth has to do basically with the presence of God in history, the presence of God in the tangled history of Israel, of all places, and the tangled histories of us all. The truth is very hard to verbalize without making it sound like a platitude framed on a minister's wall. It is a living truth in the sense that it is better experienced than explained. Not even the Bible can contain it finally, but only point to it.
DOOR: You mentioned in your book Wishful Thinking that reading the Bible as literature is like reading Moby Dick as a whaling manual. As evangelicals, our problem seems to be the opposite- an extreme literalism that reads the Bible as a whaling manual rather than literature.
BUECHNER: You can't listen to some of the more blood-curdling psalms without feeling they've got something basically wrong. The one I always think of is Psalm 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Something has gone wrong. That must be an imperfect expression of the majesty of God. But I would want to be very careful with the one who does take the Bible literally. We had a baby-sitter once who was very fundamentalistic. She became a Jehovah's Witness later on. She would say to me, "Mr. Buechner, I will not allow my children to take the Salk vaccine because the Bible says you are not to eat blood, and everyone knows there is blood in the Salk vaccine. What do you think?" Part of me wanted to say that such a response was a travesty, and suggest that, of course, her children should have the Salk vaccine. But I always drew back from saying that, because I was afraid that if I destroyed that way of reading the Bible, I might destroy all sorts of other things. But I have always had the feeling that to take things literally may be closer to the truth than some of the more sophisticated ways of looking at the Bible. If you want to talk of being literally washed in the blood of the lamb, there is something in me that recoils from that. Yet, in another sense, I'd rather have that kind of language used as an expression of experience of Christ than whatever it might be watered down to.
DOOR: What does the Bible tell you about Jesus Christ?
BUECHNER: He's central. I mean, he's there even when he's not being talked about. I never felt that so much as I did while reading the book of Job, the other day- Christ in Job, the innocent sufferer. Christ is an enormously moving figure. I never cease to be moved to the roots of my being. (I'm even moved now thinking about him.) It is only his friends who make him boring. You'd think he'd grow stale after a while. Certainly, the Bible can grow stale, but I've never found him to grow stale. I've never been bored by him.
DOOR: Is the Bible primarily a book of rules, principles, and norms set down for us to follow?
BUECHNER: I don't feel that. At least that's not what I hear. To me, the most precious words of his are, "Come unto me, all who labor and are heavy laden." I can hardly speak those words without getting a lump in my throat. It is as though the Jesus that comes through to me is less a lawgiver, for all his giving of laws, than a speaker of a stern and loving word. What I hear is his great openness. What I experience is the opening up of a whole new range of possibilities. Jesus has the invitation. He's the inviter, the opener of doors. Falling back on biblical images, he opens the door, and a light floods through that you never dreamed possible.
DOOR: Your book Telling the Truth is subtitled The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale. Of course, the most intriguing part of that is your concept of the gospel as fairy tale. What do you mean?
BUECHNER: I mean the idea of preaching the gospel in all its preposterousness and not trying to water it down. The gospel does have many of the earmarks of a fairy tale. In fairy tales you have the poor boy who becomes rich, the leaden cabinet which turns out to have the treasure in it, the ugly duckling who turns out to be a swan, the frog who becomes a prince. Then we come to the gospel, where it's the Pharisees, the good ones, who turn out to be the villians. It's the whores and tax collectors who turn out to be the good ones. Just as in fairy tales, there is the impossible happy ending when Cinderella does marry the prince, and the ugly duckling is transformed into a swan, so Jesus is not, in the end, defeated. He rises again. In all these ways there is a kind of fairy tale quality to the gospel, with the extraordinary difference, of course, that this is the fairy tale that claims to be true. The difference is that this time it's not just a story being told- it's an event. It did happen! Here's a fairy tale come true.
DOOR: It seems that many of us have tried to squeeze the fairy-tale quality out of the gospel. We have taken the peace that passes understanding and made it the peace everyone can understand.
BUECHNER: One of the greatest temptations, of course, in trying to sell something is to put it in terms that people will find palatable and swallowable. To reduce it to something that others will find in their powers to believe. But maybe the best apologetics is to present the truth as it really is. Why not present the gospel in all its madness? Why not say things like, "Yes, you will be given your life back again. Yes, it doesn't end with death. Yes, the kingdom will come. Yes, Christ will come down from heaven." Maybe people are hungry for these wild and mad things which some preachers attempt to pull down to earth.
DOOR: How do we keep our eyes open to the fairy-tale quality of the gospel?
BUECHNER: There has always been a certain mystery to me about Jesus' saying that we must become like children. I think that is the answer to your question. A lot of what I'm trying to do as a preacher and writer is to reawaken the child in people. The child is the one who trusts. The child will at least go and look for the magic place. The child is the one who is not ashamed of not knowing the answers, because he's not expected to know the answers. Maybe this is part of calling the gospel a fairy tale. Who believes more in fairy tales than a child? Therefore, maybe we need to speak to the child in people, who can indeed believe.
DOOR: You are invited to speak to ministers a great deal. What do you tell them?
BUECHNER: I tell them that a minister has only two stories to tell. One is the story of Jesus. The other is his own story. Most ministers don't dare tell their own stories- the ups and downs, the darks and lights. In a sense, the two stories are the same story. The parallels are not exact... Jesus is tempted and resists; we are tempted and don't resist. Of course, all ministers draw some stories from their lives- what somebody said or something that happened, but I mean more than that. If you want to talk about grace, if you want to talk about revelation, talk about your life with some depth (which doesn't mean lurid revelations as much as simply looking at your own deep experiences and describing them as they are.) Many ministers agree that this is the way they should bear witness to their faith, but instead of drawing on their lives for truth, they draw on it only for anecdote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)